A prominent investor who holds a large stake in the Burton Tool company has recently claimed that the company is mismanaged, citing as evidence the company’s failure to slow production in response to a recent rise in its inventory of finished products. It is doubtful whether an investor’s sniping at management can ever be anything other than counterproductive, but in this case it is clearly not justified. It is true that an increased inventory of finished products often indicates that production is outstripping demand, but in Burton’s case it indicates no such thing. Rather, the increase in inventory is entirely attributable to products that have already been assigned to orders received from customers.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A, the first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides evidence to undermine the support for the position being opposed;

B, the first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second is evidence that has been used to support the position being opposed.

C, the first states the position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole;

D, The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence;

E, The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second states the conclusion of the argument as a whole;

C as venksune pointed.
Nevertheless, neither first nor second is an evidence leaving all the other four choices to be wrong ones.

me too on the (C) bandwagon

In B, the first part is fine...the second part in this case it is clearly not justified is a conclusive statement. The further part beyond this bold statment further substantiates this conclusive statement.

The only evidence in the stimulus is the middle part wherein slow production, inventory stuff is discussed. This same evidence is inferred in multiple ways once by the investor and then by the author with the author giving addl data that there is nascent demand for which the inventory is piled up.

this is really good one.

C is just fine.

First is not an evidence so A and B are rejected .
Second if not an evidence so D and E are rejected .

Hence C

linker, can you confirm if the OA is C?

I am still not able to refute B.

Doesn't this part is evdience" Rather, the increase in inventory is entirely attributable to products that have already been assigned to orders received from customers. " is not that evdience?
S
_________________

Regards, S

It's easier to immediately point out that the second bold face is the conclusion of the argument --> C and E stand.
Now look at the first bold face, it doesn't sound like an evidence --> eliminate E

C is good.